USAF Report Indicates Microburst A Factor In C-130 Firefighting Accident | Aero-News Network
Aero-News Network
RSS icon RSS feed
podcast icon MP3 podcast
Subscribe Aero-News e-mail Newsletter Subscribe

Airborne Unlimited -- Recent Daily Episodes

Episode Date

Monday

Tuesday

Wednesday

Thursday

Friday

Airborne On ANN

Airborne 04.25.16

Airborne 04.26.16

AEA2016 LIVE!!! 0830-1230ET

AEA2016 LIVE!!! 1400-1700ET

AEA2016 LIVE!!! 1100-1400ET

Airborne Hi-Def On YouTube

Airborne 04.25.16

Airborne 04.26.16

AEA2016 LIVE!!! 0830-1230ET

AEA2016 LIVE!!! 1400-1700ET

AEA2016 LIVE!!! 1100-1400ET

AEA2016 LIVE Aero-TV: 04/27-0830ET, 04/28-1400ET, 04/29-1100ET

Sun 'n Fun 2016 Innovation Preview on Vimeo!

Sun 'n Fun 2016 Innovation Preview on YouTube!

Fri, Nov 16, 2012

USAF Report Indicates Microburst A Factor In C-130 Firefighting Accident

Crew Misjudged Wind Conditions While Flying In The South Dakota Black Hills

The crew of a MAFFS C-130 engaged in a firefight mission misjudged wind conditions and flew into the area of a microburst, which caused the airplane to impact the ground. That is the assessment of an Air Force accident panel investigating the crash.

The accident occurred July 1. In releasing an executive summary of the full report from the Air Force Mobility Command, Brig. Gen. Randall Guthrie said that the pilots' actions allowed two crewmembers in the back of the plane to survive the accident.

Stars and Stripes reports that the investigation found that that the C-130 Hercules tanker flew into a microburst just a few minutes after the pilot narrowly avoided an accident from another downdraft. Guthrie said that the crew had "struggled" to regain airspeed after their first drop of fire retardant, and the airplane encountered the microburst on the second run. He said that the prop from the number 4 engine struck the door near the back of the aircraft, and gave the loadmasters there an opportunity to escape. The four crewmen in the cockpit were killed instantly, Guthrie said.

The General said that the crew should have aborted the second run given the weather conditions, but added that they were not solely to blame for the accident. He said that a smaller lead plane did not adequately communicate the conditions to the MAFFS crew, but that considering that airplane had "barely escaped" impacting the ground, the lack of communications was "understandable." He also said that there was no ground control that could have provided a warning about weather conditions.

The full report has not been released. A safety investigation board will determine if any safety recommendations need to be made.

(USAF Image)

FMI: www.af.mil

Advertisement

More News

Aero-News: Quote Of The Day (05.02.16)

“The past months were amazing for ARCA Space Corporation, as the ArcaBoard was prepared for production. We couldn’t be happier knowing how fortunate we are to create an>[...]

Delta Orders Additional Airbus A321 Jets

Order For 37 More A321s Brings The Total Order Book To 82 Of The Large Narrowbody Aircraft Delta Air Lines has reached an agreement with Airbus to acquire 37 additional A321s as pa>[...]

Klyde Morris (05.02.16)

Klyde: The More Things Change, The More They Stay The Same! FMI: www.klydemorris.com>[...]

FAA Small UAS Rules Getting Closer

Proposed Regulations For Small UAS Operation Have Been Forwarded To The OMB For A Final Look After waiting for an extended time, the FAA has finally forwarded its proposed regulati>[...]

Airborne 04.26.16: Drone v Airplane-NOT!, eFusion Electric Plane, ANN@AEA-LIVE!!

Also: MU-2 AOA, AMA Responds To Senate FAA Reauthorization, ANN@AEA Live 04/27-0830ET, ANN@AEA Live 04/28-1400ET, ANN@AEA Live 04/29-1100ET A report of a drone possibly colliding w>[...]

blog comments powered by Disqus



Advertisement

Advertisement

Podcasts

Advertisement

© 2007 - 2016 Web Development & Design by Pauli Systems, LC